From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: 'git config' vs 'git repo-config' Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:09:10 -0800 Message-ID: <7v4pq2tet5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7v8xfetft6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Marco Costalba" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 04 11:09:20 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HDeJD-00056r-OW for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:09:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752235AbXBDKJM (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:09:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752238AbXBDKJM (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:09:12 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtai17.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:33671 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752235AbXBDKJL (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:09:11 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070204100911.BHV1343.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:09:11 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id KN9A1W0031kojtg0000000; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 05:09:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Marco Costalba's message of "Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:00:20 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Marco Costalba" writes: > On 2/4/07, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Marco Costalba" writes: >> >> > Probably you already now why I'm asking this ;-) >> >> No. But we should certainly draw up deprecation/removal >> schedule. It simply could be "never" ;-). > > qgit needs to handle the text codec information 'i18n.commitencoding' I thought you already fixed the header parser. Is that a news? I wonder what it has to do with the command deprecation/removal schedule...